There's absolutely no proof of that. It's an argument liberals definitely love to use because they need to blame religion while focusing on relativism.

And I'm not wrong regarding the constitution. What you said was right in theory, but it would have never been allowed by the founding fathers, which was the point.

... but he must be a liberal ... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

thanks! :thumbsup

Gays should be allowed to marry. It is good public policy.

Yup because everybody is equal. There's no difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, none whatsoever!

the idea of marriage wont be as appealing once you stand in divorce court for the first time...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

will leave soon for his janitorial shift at Taco Bell ...

http://www.klunkerleaguenow.com/54_janitor.gif

Proposition 8 was designed to confuse people...it impacts us all.

I guess you mised the mormon's huge campaign for prop8.

lol .... bla bla bla ....

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm


must be a "liberal" source ...

Ummm, it changed yesterday brainiac. Supreme Court will uphold because you don't vote on rights. That's why they're called 'rights'. Try read the 14th amendment sometime genius.

Obviously it is not as cut and dried as that. Many observers believe the ruling will be overturned by the Supreme Court. There are lots of gray areas when it comes to "rights" and this is certainly one of them. Even when it involved a clearly defined right like the right to bear arms there was much debate over the meaning of the right and uncertainty about the way the court would decide. This case is not nearly as clear cut as that one and there is plenty of uncertainty about the final outcome. :2 cents:

This is pretty 'cut and dried':

Supreme Court must uphold. This isn't about gun control. This is about a certain group of people's basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't get to vote on that, no matter how homophobic someone may be.

Think that it gives one person too much power when they can over turn a vote from the majority that has happened two times

Apples and Oranges, this is rewriting the meaning of what marriage is

You only bring up guns because you know how I feel about them, most people that are against guns have never fired one. I had some of my best first dates going to a firing range and one of the people I shoot with is a lesbian

he was appointed by a conservative and he's gay, but then you're use to being wrong aren't you?

Yeah well he applied strict scrutiny:

1. Again, "the people" don't get to vote on basic rights provided by the constitution. It never should have been a vote in the first place.

2. That's why we have a judicial branch. Not just to put criminals in prison, but to challenge retarded laws that were voted on by the people (the majority voting on protected rights for a minority group) and laws that were poorly conceived by legislators. That's why it's called "checks & balances". The system worked exactly as it's supposed to.

I agree. Its so ironic that the majority of people that call for "smaller government" also push for more imposing government regulations. We live in a land of contradiction.

Personally, I think the word marriage should be taken out of the arguement completely and everyone wanting to bond themselves to another individual should be documented as a "civil union"- hetero and same sex couples alike. So for instance you don't apply for a marriage license, you apply for a civil union license, etc. It's up to the couple if they want to call it marriage or not. Religion should be taken completely out of the equasion.

Sorry to burst your bubble but "marriage" has had many incarnations throughout history, culture and civilization.

It continues to be "rewritten" as man evolves.

no it's only what small minded trash are able to conceive it to be.

I'm absolutely down for this. Get rid of that word altogether. It's attached to religion anyway. There needs to be a neutral legal process.

"The people" also said that blacks should not be integrated into the armed forces. Didnt Fox report that news last week like everyone else? ~85% of soldiers said at the time that integrating blacks would destroy the US army. Truman did it anyway because he possessed enough simple common sense to see the handwriting on the wall. Will it be the GOP agenda to repeal that too?

The "people" also said blacks can't marry whites, and at one point blacks couldn't even marry other blacks.

The "people" aren't necessarily the wisest owls.

Why should we give "religists" that word? It doesn't belong to them. It belongs to humanity as it always has been throughout the ages. They've tried to take words make them there own.

I fed up with it.

:2 cents:

So when has it been other than a husband and wife?

Not about more regulations, just don't want to change the meaning of Marriage
I could live with that, call it a civil union, then when they get a divorce, we can call that a UNcivil union
But it did go to a vote and that was thrown out by a judge that should have removed himself from the decision because of being openly gay

Now you're calling GOP racist, do you have one fucking brain cell that's your own? Or are you just going to spout what the liberal press needs you to?

It's not true?

What in the hell is wrong with you dude? I stated a historical fact, and wondered out loud if it will also be part of the GOP political agenda to repeal another instance of the government acting CONTRARY to the will of the people.

Save your race baiting for someone else, I dont appreciate it.

Apparently he thinks that all GOP are Racist
http://image3.examiner.com/images/bl...istTeaSign.jpg

I'm interested to see how the judge handles the stay application.

Wasnt it a progressive that segregated the army and a Republican that desegregated?

The problem today is most republicans are progressives.

He forgot that Abe Lincoln was the first GOP president

Then Teddy came and fucked all that up :disgust

http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/...x-jewish-famil

http://matzav.com/ou-survey-finds-th...ety-as-a-whole

http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/Interma...lancing_1.html

Blah blah you're an idiot as usual.

Good god, you're not only a moron, but a moron that doesn't understand how amendments work with federal statutes. Too easy.

Why don't you enlighten us with your vast knowledge then slick.

Really? It's been between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Who taught you ancient history?

You do understand the difference between theory and practice right? You also understand that homosexuals aren't considered a legal minority too right? So you're telling me the Supreme Court must uphold is retarded, considering if they held your simplistic and literal views of the constitution, same sex rights would have been established long ago. But please, keep humoring us. There's been a shortage of moronic liberals lately.

What part of "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." don't you grasp? Obviously I'm not privy to your wealth of Constitutional Law expertise or razor sharp powers of deductive reasoning. You are just too damn cool for school, and I want to be you.

What part of "theory vs. practice" and "literal vs. interpretation" don't you understand? I realize you're trying too hard and it's frying the few brain cells you have left, but maybe you should step down from this one. Although you're definitely humorous with your "The Supreme Court will uphold because it's in the Constitution" logic.

Also, I understand you're too dumb to realize federal statutes supersede state courts, such as the Marriage Protection Amendment, DOMA, etc.

The only right the state has is to allow a civil union.

Yes, I'm struggling to stay upright and breathing because I'm on my last neuron. Thanks for the assist Demon, I might not have made it to noon without your help.